I'm happy to engage in a thoughtful discussion on the issues you raise.

First I'll tackle the legal "mechanism." I'm not suggesting a strategy, just a reality. Marriage is a contract. States do not have the power under the constitution to disregard contracts entered into in other states. Refer to Article IV and 226 years of case law. This essentially means that each state may have its own marriage laws (provided they are not otherwise discriminatory) but they must also respect marriage contracts entered into in other states just as they must respect commercial contracts and so forth. The "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) was an attempt by Congress at an end-run around the Constitution to give states the right not to honor marriage contracts of other states. DOMA is working it's way through the courts and has already been struck down by two federal appeals courts. It will get to the Supreme Court soon and few legal scholars expect it to survive for various legal reasons regardless of ideology of the justices.

In general, the legal arguments on both sides of this issue are strikingly similar to the arguments made regarding bans on interracial marriage. Those laws were ultimately struck. It is very difficult to draw a distinction when looking at the issue objectively.

DOMA itself was a reaction to a Hawaii court decision that analyzed the legal test that would have to be applied by other courts in deciding the issue. The Hawaii court ruled that federal precedent required the government pass the strictest constitution test ("strict scrutiny"). Few believe that a ban on same-sex marriage could pass that test for numerous reasons so Congress responded with DOMA. DOMA has not survived a court challenge except on procedural grounds such as lack of standing.

Regarding who gets sued...well, it depends on the specific situation. You can't normally sue to overturn a law. You must sue to demonstrate a harm and then the court might find a law unconstitutional. The defendants have been the Secretary of Defense, Hilary Clinton, and so forth. It just depends on the harm alledged.

Regarding the limits I would personally place on marriage, I would stick with the usual rules regarding consent. I don't want the 60 year old marrying the 13 year old any more than anyone else. But that should be prevented under age-based consent laws. The reason most of us would find that situation objectionable is because we don't believe young teens have the maturity to consent so let's base our law on that concern.

Cousins marrying? Brother and sister? That's not something I would advocate either. But I'm not sure I would actually make it illegal as long as they are old enough to consent. It's the libertarian in me I guess.

I would also not ban polygamy among consenting adults...that old freedom thing again. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to have more than one wife but if everyone is happy, why do I care?

I don't agree that those issues would have any place in challenging a state law regarding marriage. People brought up all that when states banned interracial marriage. But those issues are irrelevant unless the specific same sex couple happen to be cousins.

The fact is, we do not let states decide whether to respect and enforce contracts and we never have. It is required under Article IV of the constitution. States can define procedures, for example, a state can define waiting periods or blood test requirements for a marriage license or can specify which court a commercial dispute is heard in, but a state does not have the power to abrogate or refuse to enforce a contract.

I do foresee issues. The situation I alluded to of the Brazilian "partnership" where 3 people recently got married, certainly presents challenges regarding the "rights" that go along with marriage (such as spousal benefits). But I think those issues can be dealt with simply by giving everyone the right to designate a beneficiary or multiple beneficiaries the way people already do if they don't like the default. Basically, we already have systems in place to deal with many of the complexities and will just have to adapt to the new ones.

Quote:

Anyway, just food for thought...For the record, I don't oppose gay marriage if they want to be "legally" married. Although, for all intents and purposes, they are in terms of benefits and what not. It's just a title...

I appreciate your interest in discussing this issue intelligently. It is not something that impacts me personally. I have a couple of gay friends who are legally married in some state and they don't really even care much about the issue in the scheme of things. You won't see me out carrying a protest sign or lobbying my congressman on the issue. But the more I think about it the more I have come to believe that the bans are complete anachronisms and unsustainable under our Constitution.

And really, we have plenty of serious problems to address in this country and in the world. Is fighting to force two guys to refer to their commitment as a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" really the best way to spend our resources?

Also interesting, while I've acknowledge the liberal bias of MSNBC and outlined the reasons why I believe CNN to be neutral and why I believe that, you've declined to explain why you consider FN a credible source despite queries in multiple threads about this. You yourself have failed to discredit FUD from those MSNBC and CNN yet you've seen us dispel FUD from FN multiple times. If you want people to take you seriously, you're gonna have to give as good as you get.

Also interesting, while I've acknowledge the liberal bias of MSNBC and outlined the reasons why I believe CNN to be neutral and why I believe that, you've declined to explain why you consider FN a credible source despite queries in multiple threads about this. You yourself have failed to discredit FUD from those MSNBC and CNN yet you've seen us dispel FUD from FN multiple times. If you want people to take you seriously, you're gonna have to give as good as you get.

Also interesting, while I've acknowledge the liberal bias of MSNBC and outlined the reasons why I believe CNN to be neutral and why I believe that, you've declined to explain why you consider FN a credible source despite queries in multiple threads about this. You yourself have failed to discredit FUD from those MSNBC and CNN yet you've seen us dispel FUD from FN multiple times. If you want people to take you seriously, you're gonna have to give as good as you get.

I dunno, Eagle. I can't understand why you would use a source you claim has a blatant liberal bias. How do you know it's not FUD? Have you verified this with a different source? You're pretty inconsistent, you know.

it really is easily to say others are inconsistent when you don't agree with them. Or, as many on here resort to, ad hominem attacks. Of course, they are very passive aggressive.

Again, I don't see the benefit of discussing politics on here outside of PF topics. But, that is just me.

Maybe, but I think FUD needs to be responded to. My posting history is pretty much an open book. Click on my name and you'll see that I've been here since 2007. And if you have time, you can check on my past posts -- I've not posted on either religious or political topics until 2012 -- after Eagle started posting FUD.

I do agree with you in principle, but sometimes you just have to get the shovel out and clean up the mess others leave behind.

it really is easily to say others are inconsistent when you don't agree with them. Or, as many on here resort to, ad hominem attacks. Of course, they are very passive aggressive.

Again, I don't see the benefit of discussing politics on here outside of PF topics. But, that is just me.

Maybe, but I think FUD needs to be responded to. My posting history is pretty much an open book. Click on my name and you'll see that I've been here since 2007. And if you have time, you can check on my past posts -- I've not posted on either religious or political topics until 2012 -- after Eagle started posting FUD.

I do agree with you in principle, but sometimes you just have to get the shovel out and clean up the mess others leave behind.

and if the those who wanted rational discussion just ignored those who are after attention, what would happen? Usually, if you stop giving someone who is after attention what they want, they go away. Playground "rules" 101. Otherwise, weren't we talking about the quote often attributed to Mark Twain?

_________________Bichon Frise

"If you only have 1 year to live, move to Penn...as it will seem like an eternity."

and if the those who wanted rational discussion just ignored those who are after attention, what would happen? Usually, if you stop giving someone who is after attention what they want, they go away. Playground "rules" 101. Otherwise, weren't we talking about the quote often attributed to Mark Twain?

I get that, and for the most part, it works. Still, there are exceptions, like Ann Coulter. I think that in the case of this particular forum, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect is at play here.

Anyway, I've noticed that if you ignore some people here, they come back no matter what. There is a short-term effect that if you throw out enough facts that they can't refute, they either change the subject or "lose interest," although they tend to pop up again later. I'm content with that because at least real facts get out there and FUD is dispelled. That can't be all bad if people are hearing FUD and taking it at face value. You may or may not have noticed, but I tend not to start social issues threads, excepting to branch off existing ones that have become too diffuse (the National Debt thread and the Affordable Care Act thread being the notable ones). I tend not to take the first swing, but I do have a fondness for counterpunching. Besides, each time this sort of thing happens, the credibility of the person disseminating discredited FUD takes another hit. That can't be all bad either.

I dunno, Eagle. I can't understand why you would use a source you claim has a blatant liberal bias. How do you know it's not FUD? Have you verified this with a different source? You're pretty inconsistent, you know.

Lol. So I use FN and it's biased... Then I use a source that more people seem to agree with and... It's FUD? And I'm inconsistent... Alrighty then.

I dunno, Eagle. I can't understand why you would use a source you claim has a blatant liberal bias. How do you know it's not FUD? Have you verified this with a different source? You're pretty inconsistent, you know.

Lol. So I use FN and it's biased... Then I use a source that more people seem to agree with and... It's FUD? And I'm inconsistent... Alrighty then.

Don't misquote me, Eagle. I asked you how you knew that it wasn't FUD. I never said that it actually was FUD. My point is that you'll use whatever sources to try and prove your point; that you never actually stop to consider whether or not the information you receive, whatever the source, is accurate or in-context.

I'm on record in this forum as saying that all sources should be checked for accuracy. You evidently believe that no sources should be checked, as long as they agree with your views.

From your own "One Term Proposition" thread, on Sept. 21st. I never did get an answer from you:

VinTek wrote:

I don't have all the answers either. But it seems to me that discrediting lies and distortions is a good thing, no matter what the source and no matter what the target. And when such things happen, we need to make some judgments about which sources to base our beliefs on. It would be rational to discount those sources which distort most egregiously and cast a skeptical eye even on the sources we deem most reliable. Surely we can agree on that?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum